A proper stage for ignorance please
The danger of media distortion of scientific consensus must not be magnified by a false understanding of opinion balance.
The man-made climate crisis, for example, is real and well documented. Questioning these robust findings and forecasts on a similarly large stage, with similar frequency and penetration, provokes skepticism to the point of suggesting that the facts are in dispute. Counter-arguments that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, lack of expertise and the absence of professional research then readily follow as a substitute for plausibility checks.
We observe this in relation to the pandemic as well as and especially in relation to political topics. Here, interestingly enough, the stupidity factor is laid out equivalent to the will to destroy democracy / follow-up piece / Reuters follow-up.
Another update to the above: Most GOP voters want Mike Lindell to lead the Republican National Committee (RNC).
Freedom of expression is an invaluable treasure. But in order to protect it and not to destroy its social value, it requires the allocation of appropriate stage sizes - meaning: relative to the truthfulness of the content and the equal chance of counter-argumentation when it comes to attacks on the integrity of science.
As the fifth estate strengthens, this consideration increasingly falls to all of us because we also influence stage size and argument diversity on social media through our behavior.
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
